Gay Patriot Header Image

Advocate calls anti-HRC e-mail “anti-gay”

The Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) best efforts notwithstanding, criticizing the organization does not mean you harbor anti-gay attitudes. If such were the standard, gay bloggers of all different stripes, from Trig truthers (& Obama apologists) to principled leftists to yours truly would all be anti-gay. And while I have not minced my words when talking about the gay auxiliary of the Democratic National Committee the liberal gay rights organization, left-of-center bloggers have used language far more choice than mine to describe HRC.

But, it seems the Advocate editors have drunk the HRC Kool-aid, having headlined their report on the Maine journalist fired for sending an intemperate e-mail to the liberal organization, “Reporter Fired for Antigay E-mail to HRC“.  Here’s the text of that e-mail:

Who are the hateful, venom-spewing ones? Hint: Not the yes on 1 crowd. You hateful people have been spreading nothing but vitriol since this campaign began. Good riddance!’”

Hmmm.. . .  doesn’t sound anti-gay to me.  I’ve heard gay friends (not all Republicans) use equally harsh language (albeit with different words) to describe HRC.

Now, maybe the good folks at HRC think that when Larry Grard (the journalist in question) modified the epithet “hateful people” with the pronoun you, he was referring not to just the recipient of the e-mail, but to all gay people.  That would then be mighty presumptuous of HRC to assume they speak for all gay people.  They certainly don’t speak for me nor for most readers of this blog nor for countless others American gays, including a good number of left-wing bloggers. (more…)

The End of Gay Mainstream Media? — UPDATE

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 4:37 pm - November 16, 2009.
Filed under: Gay America,Gay Culture,Gay Media

It appears so.

The nation’s largest publisher of newspapers serving the gay and lesbian community has shut down.

Laura Douglas-Brown, editor of Southern Voice newspaper in Atlanta, said she arrived at work Monday to find the locks changed and a note saying parent company Window Media LLC had closed down.

She said the company’s other publications – including the Washington Blade, Houston Voice and South Florida Blade – were also being closed.

“From my understanding, there was just no more money to keep these companies running,” she said in a telephone interview as she sat with her former employees outside their locked Atlanta office. “We had all been told that the companies would be sold. The fact that we were shut down was a complete shock.”

The company’s financial trouble stemmed from a number of factors. Besides an industrywide drop in advertising revenue amid the economic meltdown, mainstream publications are writing more about gay and lesbian issues, reducing dependency on niche publications such as Window Media’s.

The company had been struggling financially since last year. The company’s majority stockholder, New York City-based Avalon Equity Partners, was taken over by the U.S. Small Business Administration in August 2008, Douglas-Brown said.

Just last month, the Washington Blade celebrated its 40th anniversary. News editor Joshua Lynsen declined comment on the newspaper’s closure.

“Window Media long provided a very special outlet for the gay community to learn about itself way before there were a lot of other places to find that type of thing,” said Michael Musto, an openly gay writer for the Village Voice in New York, which is owned by Village Voice Media Holdings. “This was the gay community writing about itself, and that’s a voice we should never lose.”

This is too bad.  While I probably disagreed editorially 99% of the time with the Window Media publications — their presence as true journalism within the gay community was important.  Their reporters were professional and had a lot of integrity.  For example, only the Washington Blade reported that the murder of African-American teens in Newark was related to their sexual orientation.

I’m not sure I trust the “rest” of the mainstream media to accurately cover gay and lesbian issues the way the Window Media publications did.

Hopefully, the Blades & Southern Voice will be reborn in a new way soon.

UPDATE: Washington Blade editor Kevin Naff has told

“The Blade staff is united and ready to continue the paper’s long-standing mission. The first meeting for our new venture is Tuesday and we welcome the community’s input as we move forward.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Joe Solmonese: Hypocrite of the Week

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 12:06 pm - June 26, 2009.
Filed under: Gay Media,Gay Politics,Hypocrite Rights Campaign

A few weeks ago, the folks at GayWired asked me to write their “Hypocrite of the Week” column every other week. Eager to find a wider audience for my words, I readily agreed. Now, either because I was looking to find the most hypocritical individual of this particular week or because this was just a good week for hypocrisy, the more I thought about this, the larger became the pool of potential hypocrites.

Governor Sanford certainly ranked high. As did a number of media figures. In the end I settled on Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), largely because, well, all my other choices seemed to be getting their due in the media. Rather than join the media bandwagon in focusing on the hypocrisy of those individuals, I figured I’d help shine the light on someone who largely escaped media scrutiny, yet whose hypocrisy largely goes unnoticed in the gay world.

For all too long, Solmonese has gotten away with putting loyalty to the Democratic Party and his left-wing allies ahead of honest advocacy for the gay community. Noting his obsession with abortion, I wondered “why the leader of gay organization would be so interested in a problem created by heterosexuals not considering the consequences of their sexual activities.

Anyway, my piece is up and I encourage you to read the whole thing.  It’s certain to excite some controversy.  As I expect this to be the first of many columns, I welcome your suggestions for future hypocrites of the week.

A Fool’s Hope for a Civil Discussion of Gay Marriage?

Thanks to Glenn, I just discovered another gay blogger who holds views on Carrie Prejean nearly identical to my own.  It seems that we gay folks who favor civil discourse on gay marriage are a minority among outspoken gays.  Most of our peers alas remain silent as vocal gay activists and celebrities slur gay marriage opponents instead of rationally responding to their opposition.

Australia’s Garth Godsman looks at how various gay people and their allies in the left-wing media have responded to Miss Prejean’s simple answer that “believes that marriage is between a man and a woman” and asks:

What happened to being able to firstly argue a case intelligently and rationally and then, secondly, be prepared to agree to disagree while respecting another person’s honestly held opinion?

He’s much less sparing in his criticism than I might be (closer in style to my co-blogger  🙂  ).  He too sees the hypocrisy of the left in their hysterical reaction to Miss Prejean while excusing her fellow gay marriage opponent who sits in the White House:

But, let’s face it, Prejean is a much smaller and easier target for the hatred of Hilton and others.

The organisers of the Miss California pageant fell over themselves to piously declare that “religious beliefs have no place in politics in the Miss California family.”

Does anyone imagine they’d have said the same if she’s espoused support for gay marriage because of her religious beliefs?

But as has been observed repeatedly about the left, tolerance for them is very much a one-way street.

Why haven’t more gay people join Garth, Japhy Grant and myself in standing up to those who would attack Miss Prejean personally instead of take issue with her rationally?   Instead the publicity she generated by stating her opinion simply and civilly to explain why states should recognize same-sex civil marriages, they’re using it to make themselves look mean.  And petty.  

They’d rather insult their adversaries than make their case.

But, I’ve said this before.  I look forward to the day when I no longer have to repeat this point.  But, that would mean that all too many on the left would have to change their very manner of relating to their ideological and philosophical adversaries.

A fool’s hope perhaps, but a hope nonetheless.

Steve Schmidt Plots Strategy for GOP on Gays

In a wide-ranging interview with the Washington Blade, Steve Schmidt, chief strategist for U.S. Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign, “urged Republicans to steer clear of divisive social issues if they are to remain viable candidates

I think the Republican Party should not be seen by a broad majority of the electorate as focused with singularity on issues like gay marriage. . . . The attitudes of voters about gay marriage and about domestic partnership benefits for gay couples are changing very rapidly and for voters under the age of 30, they are completely disconnected from what has been Republican orthodoxy on these issues.

Exactly.  He has a lot more to say on the issues (so read the whole thing), but I wish to focus on this, one of the things our party needs to do to win back its majority–avoid making social issues the focus.  It’s why, I believe, we should put the focus on the taxes, spending and national security.  If we do address social issues, say we believe they should be resolved by elected legislatures not appointed judges.

The most important thing is to avoid even the appearance that our leadership has made social issues their defining ideology.

Personally, I wish more Republicans would do as Utah’s GOP Governor John Huntsman (perhaps following the lead of his Nutmeg State counterpart) has done (as Schmidt points out) and come out in favor of state recognition of same-sex civil unions.

(H/t GayPatriot Reader Mr. Moderate)

On Milk, Movies & Expectations

Almost a decade ago, shortly after moving to LA, an acquaintance in a writing group to which I then belonged, raved about how wonderful was the then-new release, Being John Malkovich.  The flick, he claimed, had multiple levels of meaning and would soon rank with the great classics of cinema.

When I went to see the film, I was expecting a modern-day Citizen Kane, but discovered only a very quirky comedy which I might have liked better had I not expected so much.  And so it was last night with Milk.  That’s not to say the movie is not deserving of many of the accolades it has accrued. It’s just to say that, to me at least, it didn’t live up to the hype.

That said, the movie was an amazingly well done piece of cinema, well integrating its own dramatization of events in the 1970s with video footage of those very events.  Very well integrating.  And Sean Penn has truly earned his latest Oscar nomination.

The real problem with the film was the very difficulty of its project, trying to recapture on screen the live of a man during a turbulent time, in this case, the dawn of the gay rights’ movement.  A biopic is perhaps the most difficult of films to make, as a man’s (or woman’s) life, powerful as it is, doesn’t always make a great story.  After the movie, I was trying to think of all such films which moved me.  Only three came to mind, Patton, Braveheart and What’s Love Go to Do With It.  And each changed the facts to better dramatize the hero’s (or, in the case of that last film, the heroine’s) life.

Similarly, it seems the filmmakers added Penn (playing the eponymous Harvey Milk) taping his testament as a means to hold the various and disparate events of his life in the 1970s together.


Once Again, How Gay Activists Can Learn from the Right

Yesterday, on the plane from Cincinnati to LAX, I finally had a chance to read National Review‘s “Renewal” (dated December 1) issue.  I believe it was their first number published after the election.

As I read the various articles where leading conservative pundits and other columnists addressed the reasons for the GOP defeat and prospects for rebuilding, I wondered if the Advocate — or any leading gay publication for that matter — would devote an entire issue to introspection, criticism of the gay movement and its media and political strategy.

Of course it wouldn’t.

In the regular e-mails I receive from the various gay organizations, I read more anger at the “Yes” campaign than criticism of the “No” campaign.  They can’t get over the alleged dishonesty of the proponents of the proposition.

Well, we proponents of John McCain have ample evidence of the dishonesty of the Obama campaign.  Indeed, a few of the commentators in that National Review issue mention how the Democrat misrepresented his Republican rival’s position in a number of ads.  Unlike the gay organizations, none dwelled on the deceptive ads.  They focused on where our side went wrong.

Once again, gay activists have something to learn from conservatives.

More on Absence of Introspection of “No on 8” Leaders

In a post today, left-of-center blogger and activist Michael Petrelis alerts his readers to an editorial in the Bay Area Reporter raising the same sorts of questions he, I and other bloggers of various political stripes have been asking about the failure of the leaders of the “No on 8” campaign to engage in any instrospection since the proposition passed:

The Yes on 8 campaign, in many ways, out-maneuvered No on 8, period. What we need is an examination as to why that happened and move forward, preferably with a consensus not to make the same mistakes again. . .  . If the No on 8 leadership isn’t willing to open up about what went wrong, the community can’t be expected to buy in to another costly ballot fight.

It’s that simple.

The heads of gay organizations seem more interested in protecting their hides and sinecures than in actually taking any responsibility for the ballot measure.

Who will hold them to account?

Will the Juvenilia of Prop 8 Sore Losers Ever Cease?

[Please note I revised this post slightly to correct typos and to clean up a few paragraphs.]

Imagine, if you will, that in order to protest the outcome of the recent elections, some leading Republicans declared a “Day Without Republicans,” encouraging those disappointed with the election results to “call in Republican” to work and stay at home all day.

Well, some sore losers of the campaign to defeat Proposition 8 are doing just that with their latest childish antic, declaring December 10 a “Day Without a Gay” when people “call in gay” to work.  Can’t these people grow up and instead of extending their temper tantrum, actually work on promoting the idea of gay marriage?

If they’re not adult enough to handle a political setback, are they adult enough to assume the obligations of marriage?  I know that many gay people have assumed such obligations and have shown that they are up to the task.  Shouldn’t these individuals be telling those demonstrating to chill and work on a more adult solution to the current situation, like actually promoting the merits of gay marriage?

Even gay leaders have demonstrated a childish attitude toward defeat at the ballot box.  In an extended rant on her blog, National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Executive Director Kate Kendell says “there will never be acceptance” of the result. That’s not leadership.  That’s refusal to accept reality.  And it’s childish.

Just by following the antics of gay activists and reading the public statements of the heads of gay organizations, I would assume that gay people aren’t up to the obligations of gay marriage.  Fortunately, I know gay couples who take their marriages seriously.  That’s why I opposed Proposition 8.

Think about that statement for a minute.  Okay?

Now, let me explain again for those who, like Miss Kendell, refuse to accept reality.  I’m a gay guy.  I socialize with gay people.  I know many who favor gay marriage, have gotten married and who take the institution and their vows seriously.  That’s why I voted “No.”  Unlike me (and others in coastal metropolitan areas), many Californians do not know such couples.  A good number of them voted, “Yes.”  

You’re not going to change their votes by acting like children who didn’t get the toy they wanted for Christmas.

Instead of continuing this temper tantrum, advocates of gay marriage should, unlike Miss Kendell, say that they accept the results of Prop 8.  The should show respect for those who have serious concerns about changing an institution defined for millennia by gender difference.   They must refuse to define advocacy of traditional marriage as hate.  And they must accept their obligation to make the case why this is a good thing.

Most have refused that obligation, resorting instead to repeating their mantra that gay marriage is a civl right without explaining why that it is so (except to quote the Loving decision).  Or blathering on about how the Proposition eliminates a right-as if the state had long recognized same-sex marriages.

I now wonder if mayber I should have voted, “Yes,” on 8 in order to remind advocates of same-sex marriage of their failure to make the case for gay marriage.

RELATED:  Michelle Malkin’s The insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob: “Instead of introspection and self-criticism, however, the sore losers who opposed Prop. 8 have responded with threats, fists, and blacklists.”

More Good News About McCain’s Attitude toward Gays

The evidence keeps coming in about John McCain’s attitudes about gays. And guess what? It confirms what we already know about this good man from Arizona: he harbors exactly the attitude toward gays we would want from our friends, family, colleagues, employers and leaders. He treats us as individuals and does not define us by our sexuality.

Yesterday, when checking my e-mail upon returning home from celebrating the Second Day of Rosh Hashanah and running various errands, I discovered a myriad of e-mails from readers and other friends about McCain’s interview with the Washington Blade, “the first known time a Republican presidential nominee has agreed to an interview with a gay publication.”

He cites his friendship with former Congressman Jim Kolbe and former Tempe, Arizona Mayor Neil Giuliano as shaping his views on gay issues. He calls 9/11 hero Mark Bingham a “role model.”

Asked whether he would decline to appoint someone because of his sexual orientation, McCain replied, “I have always hired the most qualified and competent people — regardless of their political party, race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.”

While he currently opposes repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, he indicated he would consider changing his position based on what military commanders say:

I promise to give full consideration to any legislation that reaches my desk. On “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I’m going to defer to our military commanders. So far they have told me it’s working. I’m willing to have the policy reviewed to make sure that’s the case, but at the end of the day, I’m going to rely on the commanders who will be impacted by a change in the law.

He supports the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and offers a responsible view of sex education:

I have supported including abstinence as a component of sex-education programs. Decisions regarding programs targeted specifically at gay youth should be made based on a review of the scientific data to determine what works and what doesn’t, but they must encourage responsible individual behavior.

When asked about his position on gay adoption where he has been widely misrepresented in the gay (and sometimes even mainstream media), he points out that adopion “isn’t an issue the president deals with. I’m a federalist, and this is an issue reserved to the states in our system of government.”


Betting on John McCain (to Get More than 30% of Gay Vote)

Back during the 2004 presidential campaign, the gay media, indeed all media, all but ignored gay Republicans (indeed all gay Americans) intending to vote for President Bush. I guess they assumed the number would be small because Log Cabin had failed to endorse the Republican nominee that year. All were surprised to see exit polls showing Bush receiving 23% of the gay vote that year.

This year, Pajamas Media is showing itself to me ahead of the curve, leaving the mainstream media in the dust, by posting my piece on a phenomenon other media (except blogs) have ignored, that of gay Democrats backing the presumptive Republican nominee in the current presidential contest.

Herewith a taste of my post:

Back in February while discussing the housing market with a relator active in the Los Angeles gay community, the conversation turned to politics. I learned that this friend who had helped raise money for Hillary Clinton’s White House bid intended to support John McCain should his candidate lose the Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama.

At the time, I thought little of this exchange, assuming my friend’s opposition to his party’s then-frontrunner was an aberration, just one gay man who didn’t trust the junior Senator from Illinois. But, about a month later, in an Instant Message conversation a gay friend from New York who usually votes Democratic and then supported his own junior Senator’s presidential campaign, suggested he might vote for the Republican nominee that fall should Obama win.

He wouldn’t be the last. In the next month, I would talk to and overhear additional gay Democrats inclined to support John McCain in a fall match against Barack Obama.

Now that I’ve whet your appetite, click here to read the rest.

How Blogs Publicize Gay-Bashing When MSM is Silent

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

UPDATE:  Please note that I have changed this piece slightly to include the name of my source, the woman who translated the articles, once I received her permission to do so.

Within thirty-six hours of my posting on the April gay bashing in Amsterdam, a variety of websites, conservative, libertarian and gay, picked up on the story, including the blog of a leading Australian newspaper and the website of (the self-proclaimed) “largest gay news service” in Europe. That latter used language identical to that in the translations we provided, suggesting our post was their source.

We believe we were the first English-language source to cover this.

The publication (in the original sense of the term, “making public) of this story shows how powerful and necessary the blogosphere has become. Had I not met a Evelyn Markus, a Dutch Jewish lesbian, last weekend at the Santa Barbara Retreat of the Horowitz Freedom Center, few in the English-speaking world would have known about this event, yet another in a series of attacks on gay people n the Dutch capital.

Learning I was a blogger, Evelyn alerted me to the incident and asked me to write about it. I told I could do so only with evidence, i.e., links to other articles or a police report. She told me about the articles and then (on her own dime) offered to translate them for me.

We are particularly grateful for her efforts. They have helped making people increasingly aware of what Mark Steyn called (in linking this post) a “Dutch gay-bashing spree.”

All to many gay news sites seem indifferent to this phenomenon. If it weren’t for that chance meeting, this story might not have come out.

No wonder the MSM is in decline. When news outlets paid to cover this thing don’t uncover such stories, especially given that they’re part of a disturbing trend, we’re dependent on unpaid bloggers (and other regular citizens) to make public such information.

Where we would be without the blogosphere is beyond me.

Gay Bashing in Amsterdam goes Unnoticed in US

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:54 pm - June 5, 2008.
Filed under: Gay Media,Gay Politics,Gays in Other Lands

While blogging from the Santa Barbara retreat of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, I contended that:

the greatest enemies of gay people are not social conservatives in the West who may question (what they call) our lifestyle and oppose legislation benefiting us, but Islamic theocrats who execute gay people in jurisdictions where they predominate and seek to destroy the nations with political systems which allow us to live freely.

Well, it seems the threat in not just from such theocrats in nations where they hold sway, but also from angry followers of their anti-gay doctrine in Western lands. At that retreat, I met a nice and intelligent Dutch gay lesbian who told me about a gay-bashing on April 30 in the Netherlands. She has since translated articles from the Dutch press (included with links below the “jump”).

At a fashion show to promote tolerance of gay people on April 30, a national holiday in Holland, celebrating the birthday of the late Queen Juliana, a group of ten Muslim youths dragged gay model Mike Du Pree down from the catwalk, beating him up and breaking his nose. A second model who tried to help out was also attacked.

I could find no reference to this beating on any of the gay news web-sites I checked, including, the Advocate, the Washington Blade as well as sites of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF). (I did searches on each of these sites for “Amsterdam.”) Why is it HRC is so eager to savage John McCain, yet reluctant to condemn real gay-bashing? And such gay-bashing (as our friend Chris Crain knows from first-hand experience) is a growing phenomenon in the Netherlands.

Martin Bosma, gay issues spokesman of the Dutch Party of Freedom (PVV), said as much:

This shows how strong the Islamic gaybashers feel they are. Even at daylight, on Queen’s Day, in the heart of Amsterdam, they strike . . . . The Dutch nationality of the gaybashers of Rembrandt Square should immediately be taken from them and they should be expelled from the country today. The Netherlands can show no mercy for these people who damage our society in this way. Either they will win, or we will win.

Let us hope that Dutch lawmakers show a similar tough attitude toward such thugs. And that gay Americans take notice of the threats our fellows face in nations run by governments officially tolerant of gay people.

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit provides a picture of Mike DuPree.

With appreciation to Glenn for alerting his readers to this important story, part, alas, of a growing trend in Europe.

Click on more to find links to articles in Dutch on this bashing and translations: (more…)

Washington’s One-Sided Gay War

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:33 am - May 2, 2008.
Filed under: Gay Media,Liberals

Reading our blog’s coverage of the biased article in Out magazine, Pajamas asked me to expand my thoughts into an essay for them. I did just that. It’s up. Here are the first few paragraphs:

In his recent book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, Jonah Goldberg observes how frequently liberals, even those in the media, dub conservatives fascists. We gay conservatives face similar name-calling from our liberal peers, even those in the gay media.

Our gay peers, however, don’t limit themselves to calling us fascists. They also call us the equivalent of African-American Klansmen or Jewish Nazis (and think themselves original when they use those tired and inaccurate analogies). The adjective they use most frequently to describe us in “self-hating” and the noun “hypocrite.”

True to form, Charles Kaiser begins his piece, “Washington’s Gay War,” in Out magazine (kind of a gay equivalent of Vanity Fair) referencing “an ancient hypocrisy at the heart of the GOP.” While he may be fascinated by this ancient legend, he doesn’t devote much time to the present-day reality of gay Republicans (except as viewed through the lens of gay Democrats).

Now that I’ve whet your appetite, click here to read the rest.

GayPatriot’s America Podcast:
Kevin Naff, Washington Blade

I just finished up a podcast with Kevin Naff, the Editor of the Washington Blade. Primarily I wanted to talk to Kevin about the horrible execution-style murder of those college kids last August in Newark, NJ. Lou Chibarro of the Blade has the latest details.

On the podcast, Kevin tells me that the mainstream media is proactively covering up the fact that at least one of the murder victims was openly gay. In addition, all three victims were on their way to a Gay Pride event before they were murdered. Kevin has been trying for nearly a year to lift the veil of secrecy and get some national attention to this angle. He also says police have confided that the details of the murder were much more gruesome than at first reported.

I promised Kevin we would follow the story here at GayPatriot, and help as we can.

Also on our show today, Kevin and I discussed Pansy-gate. Kevin’s take mirrored my own. Who knew that a top echelon member of the Gay Media Mafia was so smart! (Just razzing you, Kevin!)

And we wrapped up with an overall look at Hillary vs. Obama vs. McCain.

Feel free to listen to GayPatriot’s America at BlogTalkRadio…. or just push play below!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Kudos to Log Cabin for Handling “Out” Magazine Bias

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 1:23 pm - April 30, 2008.
Filed under: Gay Media,Gay Politics,Log Cabin Republicans

When I read Charles Kaiser’s response to (what I called in this post) “a raft of e-mails faulting him for failing to talk to a single gay Republican in his Out magazine article, ‘Washington’s Gay War,'” I knew the organization had scored a major success.

Their call to action (both on the web and in an e-mail blast to members) generated enough correspondence to get that magazine to take notice and respond.

For as long as I have been involved in Log Cabin, particularly when I was a club president in the late 1990s, I faulted the national office for not doing enough to challenge the anti-Republican bias of the gay media.

Many gays may well see gay Republicans as self-hating or otherwise “traitors to the cause” because our media offers slanted coverage of us, highlighting the most hypocritical, relying on stereotypes drawn from books, plays or their own imagination. Gay publications (and even some in the MSM) rarely offer accurate pictures of real live gay conservatives.

If we want our fellow gays to have an accurate picture of us, we need to do something to change the way the media covers us. Kaiser’s article was not the first biased piece, but just another example of shoddy reporting of gay Republicans.

In a welcome change from the past, Log Cabin’s national office refused to take this one lying down. They took action, pointing out the flaws in the article, asking members to contact the magazine. And they got results.

I daresay that the next time Out magazine commissions a piece on gay Republicans, it will turn to someone more willing to interview gay Republicans, listen to us and quote us in his article.

I’m delighted at how swiftly Log Cabin responded to this “hit piece.” They deserve major kudos for their efforts. This is a welcome change. It shows how much we can accomplish when we speak up. And dare to make waves.

Now on to the Advocate.

“Out” Author Remains Clueless About Gay Republicans

While working on a piece expanding on this post for Pajamas, I chanced upon Charles Kaiser’s response to a raft of e-mails faulting him for failing to talk to a single gay Republican in his Out magazine article, “Washington’s Gay War.”

Introducing the response, Out editor Aaron Hicklin notes that the article “generated far more than the average grab bag of angry letters from readers,” citing Log Cabin’s call to action specifically. This correspondence, Hicklin believes, “seemed to warrant a response from the author.

Major kudos to Log Cabin for getting at least one gay media outlet to take notice of the concerns of the oft-misrepresented gay Republicans. It’s unfortunate though that Kaiser’s response only further demonstrates his ignorance of gay Republicans.

Despite our contention that he didn’t talk to any gay Republicans, Kaiser claims he did. He just didn’t see fit to quote them.

He further defends himself by saying that the article was “about gay political wars in Washington” and not gay Republicans. Well, shouldn’t a journalist covering a war strive to cover both sides? Kaiser only covers the Republican side from the perspective of Democrats.

He also contends that none of his correspondents challenged “the facts” in his piece.

Not privy to the correspondence, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of that statement. In the article itself, Kaiser lets others do most of the talking. And maybe no one challenged the various quotations in the article. But, they make claims which they fail to prove, notably that of Washington Post reporter Vargas, “If you come out on the Hill and you’re a Republican, you lose power.”

His article doesn’t reference a single Republican who lost power when he came out.

The issue wasn’t so much the accuracy of the quotations, but whom Kaiser chose to quote. And he himself acknowledged that he didn’t quote the gay Republicans with whom he talked.


How MSM (& gay Media) Narratives Color the News

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:13 pm - April 24, 2008.
Filed under: Blogging,Gay America,Gay Media,Media Bias

Take a gander around the conservative and libertarian blogosphere and you’ll find reference to facts which disprove the narratives of articles in the MSM. Today, for example Glenn Reynolds links John Podhoretz’s post noting how a recent report filed by a New York Times reporter undermined that very reporter’s past articles showing the failures of the Iraqi government to respond effectively to the recent uprising by radical Shiite militias.

Sometimes it seems reporters put their own narratives before the actual facts of the story they’re covering. It seems they’re more interested in confirming what they already believe than in discovering what is actually going on.

Such is the case of Charles Kaiser and his Out magazine “hit piece” on gay Republicans. Just as some New York Times reporters’ narrative that we’re headed to defeat in Iraq colors their coverage of the conflict, so does some gay scribes’ narrative of the hypocrisy of gay Republicans color their coverage of us.

As I make that point of the end of my rather lengthy second post on this travesty of journalism, I repeat it here in this shorter post in the hope of giving it a wider audience:

For these leftist scribes, their narrative is more important than the facts. The very opening blurb of Kaiser’s piece tips us off to their narrative on gay Republicans: “exposing an ancient hypocrisy at the heart of the GOP.” So fascinated are they by some ancient legend, they neglect present-day reality.

Alas that for all too many members of our community, the gay media narrative passes for actual reporting. No wonder so many gay people have such a negative view of gay Republicans. Kudos to Log Cabin and Chris Crain for challenging that.

UPDATE: As to the example I gave in the opening paragraph, Glenn Reynolds writes today, “Plus this: Iraqi forces see victory in Basra. And yet it was spun by the U.S. media as a huge defeat.”

Of Charles Kaiser, Biased Coverage in the Gay Media & MSM–and those noble exceptions to the “rule”

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:00 pm - April 24, 2008.
Filed under: Gay America,Gay Media,Media Bias

Back when I was president of Log Cabin of Northern Virginia, I knew I could count on Washington Blade reporter Lou Chibbaro, Jr. to treat us (and all gay Republicans for that matter) fairly. When writing about us, he made sure to talk to us before writing about us.

So, I wonder why it is that Out magazine chose to ask Charles Kaiser to write its piece on gay Republicans instead of Lou, a gay reporter with a record of evenhanded treatment whereas Kaiser has consistently in his Advocate columns (and elsewhere I presume) repeated the trite, tiresome and untrue gay-left talking points about gay Republicans.

Did Out commission Kaiser to write this piece because they knew his anti-Republican leanings and wanted an article which “proved” what they already believed, that gay Republicans are closeted hypocrites, living a double-life? And that our political careers would be compromised by our coming out? (That latter point have been true at one point, but is hardly the case today.)

By contrast with columnist Kaiser, reporter Chibbaro has a long record of covering the Washington, DC gay community, earning the respect of individuals on both sides of the political aisle and having a good number of Republican contacts. That Out magazine didn’t turn to someone like him, but instead chose a columnist known for his critical commentary of Republicans suggests its editors weren’t interested in an unbiased account of gay Republicans.

While we gay Republicans give the gay media a lot of grief, we should remember there are those like Lou still committed to covering us fairly. I thought of Lou this morning when reading Michael Yon’s Moment of Truth in Iraq. On page 139, Yon writes that while conservative readers give “the New York Times grief,” that paper does have two reporters Michael Gordon and Rich Oppel striving to provide fair coverage of the War in Iraq. He singles out other MSM reporters who strive to be evenhanded.

As we give Kaiser (and Out Magazine for tapping him) grief for his “hit piece,” we should also remember the Lou Chibbaros of the world. As well as the MSM reporters not dedicated to their editors’ narrative.

“Out” Magazine writes about Gay Republicans without talking to Gay Republicans

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:23 pm - April 22, 2008.
Filed under: Gay America,Gay Media,Media Bias

Imagine, if you will, a piece on gay activists where the writer interviewed only Gary Bauer, James Dobson, Paul Cameron, Lou Sheldon and their associated social conservative ilk. Perhaps, such a thing has already been done. If it were, the mainstream media would have dismissed it (as well they should).

This week, through Log Cabin, we learned of a similar piece in Out magazine where the author contacts those opposed to the subject of his piece and one openly gay journalist. Let us hope the mainstream media treat this as they would a piece on gays featuring such anti-gay activists. For “reporter” Charles Kaiser is little different from a social conservative cheerleader for such divisive figures as Dobson, Sheldon and Cameron choosing only to interview figures antagonistic toward his subject.

Having read the piece, I am amazed at little its author actually knows about gay Republicans (kind of like Dobson and gay people). He devotes a good chunk of his article to Terry Dolan, the one-time head of the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) by day and supposedly notorious leather queen by night. Dolan died over two decades ago, just over six years before Log Cabin set up its national office in Washington and years before Republican Congressmen Jim Kolbe continued to win reelection in Arizona even after coming out as gay.

Given the fact that Dolan died when Reagan was president, you’d think he’d hold less interest to a reporter covering gay Republicans in 2008 than an openly gay Republican Congressman who chaired a House subcommittee in the current Bush Administration. But, Kolbe gets nary a mention in this article while Kaiser quotes a “Democratic political consultant” for an anecdote about Dolan.

That consultant wasn’t the only Democrat Kaiser contacted for his piece on gay Republicans. He also quotes openly gay Democratic Congressman Barney Frank.